From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751637Ab2GYRwv (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:52:51 -0400 Received: from longford.logfs.org ([213.229.74.203]:57421 "EHLO longford.logfs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750959Ab2GYRwu (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:52:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:39:05 -0400 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer , Steve Hodgson Subject: Re: [PATCH] add blockconsole version 1.1 Message-ID: <20120725163905.GA28036@logfs.org> References: <20120424205946.GH20610@logfs.org> <201207240901.16151.tvrtko.ursulin@onelan.co.uk> <20120724143822.GA24954@logfs.org> <201207250917.09516.tvrtko.ursulin@onelan.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <201207250917.09516.tvrtko.ursulin@onelan.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 25 July 2012 09:17:09 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > As far as I know there is nothing like netpoll in the block layer so it has to > be a lot less reliable than netconsole. Especially with delaying write out to > a workqueue. Anyway, I am not arguing, just saying in my opinion those caveats > are worth documenting. ... > My point was that it's reliability will differ depending on the block device > in use, which is unlike netconsole. Again I am not arguing against the > feature, but if you don't see things like these are worth documenting I give > up. I have nothing against documenting things. Can you suggest something better than "reliability of blockconsole will depend on the reliability of the underlying storage layer", which sounds rather obvious? Jörn -- I don't understand it. Nobody does. -- Richard P. Feynman